Preview
Jeremy V. Reyes (SBN 236280) ELECTRONICALLY
1 Law Office of Jeremy V. Reyes
2300 Boynton Avenue, Suite 104C
FILED
2 Superior Court of California,
Fairfield, CA 94533 County of San Francisco
3 Telephone: 707.815.0088 03/12/2024
Fax: 888.400.0340 Clerk of the Court
BY: AUSTIN LAM
4 jeremyreyeslaw@gmail.com Deputy Clerk
5 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN GILLIS, an Individual by and
through his Guardian Ad Litem, LUCIA GILLIS; and JASON E. GILLIS, an Individual
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CGC-24-613060
10 LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN Case No.
11 GILLIS, an Individual and by and
through his Guardian Ad Litem, LUCIA COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
12 GILLIS; and JASON E. GILLIS, an INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:
Individual;
13 (1)-(5) Violations of California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Govt. Code §§ 12929, 12955, et seq.
14 v. (Termination of Lease; Failure to Provide
Reasonable Accommodation; Failure to Engage in
15
OSCAR LINARES, an Individual; P & the Interactive Process; Discriminatory Fees;
16 A REALTY; ORLANDO Retaliation);
BOJORQUEZ, an Individual; JULIA N. (6) Breach of Contract;
17 ZULETA, an Individual; and DOES 1 (7) Negligence;
through 50, inclusive; (8) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability –
18 Contract;
(9) Breach of the Statutory Warranty of Habitability –
19 DEFENDANTS. Tort;
20 (10) Nuisance;
(11) Constructive Eviction;
21 (12) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;
(13) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;
22 (14) Unlawful Retaliation (Civ. Code § 1942.5);
(15) Bad Faith Retention of Security Deposit (Civ.
23 Code § 1950.5);
(16) Unfair Business Practices
24
25 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
26 PLAINTIFFS LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN GILLIS, an Individual and by and
27 through his Guardian Ad Litem, LUCIA GILLIS; and JASON E. GILLIS, an Individual, and each
28 of them, allege as follows:
-1-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 I. PARTIES
2 1. On or about September 2020, PLAINTIFFS LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN
3 GILLIS, an Individual and by and through his Guardian Ad Litem LUCIA GILLIS; and JASON E.
4 GILLIS, an Individual, and each of them became residential tenants at the property commonly
5 known as 1272 Gray Hawk Lane, Suisun City, California 94585 (“PREMISES”), a single-family
6 home with four bedrooms. Their tenancy (“TENANCY”) refers to the time period of occupancy,
7 in or around September 2020, through a date on or before March 9, 2022 when PLAINTIFFS were
8 forced to vacate the PREMISES for reasons, including but not limited to: habitability defects,
9 unlawful discrimination, and unlawful retaliation.
10 2. Unless otherwise qualified, wherever in this complaint (“COMPLAINT”), reference is
11 made to PLAINTIFFS, such allegations shall be deemed to collectively refer to the three named
12 PLAINTIFFS (“PLAINTIFFS”).
13 3. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF LUCIA GILLIS (“LUCIA”) is a competent
14 adult residing in Solano County. LUCIA is the natural parent of SHAWN GILLIS and JASON E.
15 GILLIS. In addition, LUCIA has legal conservatorship over SHAWN GILLIS and is intended to
16 serve as Guardian Ad Litem for SHAWN GILLIS behalf in this action. At times relevant herein,
17 LUCIA is also referred to herein as “Lucia Delfina Gillis.”
18 4. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF SHAWN GILLIS, an Individual and by and
19 through his Guardian Ad Litem LUCIA GILLIS (“SHAWN”), is a resident of Solano County.
20 SHAWN has several disabilities, including but not limited to autism spectrum disorder, obsessive
21 compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. He requires a live-in aide, and he also needs an aide-
22 caregiver to care to supervise him at home and in public places.
23 5. During the TENANCY, SHAWN and JASON E. GILLIS (“JASON”) were minors. At
24 the time of the filing this action, PLAINTIFFS SHAWN and JASON are over 18 years of age. At
25 times relevant herein, JASON is also referred to as Jason Gillis, Jr.
26 6. Since vacating the PREMISES and at the time of filing this action, JASON is a
27 competent adult.
28 7. After vacating the PREMISES on or about March 9, 2022, PLAINTIFFS continue in
-2-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 residence together, living as a family unit consistent with their TENANCY at the PREMISES.
2 8. DEFENDANTS OSCAR LINARES, P & A REALTY, ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ,
3 and JULIA N. ZULETA, are each sued herein respectively as individuals or in their capacity as
4 owner and/or property manager for the PREMISES during the TENANCY.
5 9. All times relevant herein, DEFENDANT OSCAR LINARES (“LINARES”), is the
6 owner of the PREMISES, who resides and does business in the City and County of San Francisco.
7 At times relevant herein, DEFENDANT LINARES also acted as property manager for the
8 PREMISES, and on information and belief, was and is employing individuals in the City and County
9 of San Francisco. At time relevant herein, LINARES is also referred to herein as “Oscar”.
10 10. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANT P & A REALTY and DOES 1 through 25,
11 (“P & A REALTY”) is a business, the exact form of organization of which is presently unknown to
12 PLAINTIFFS who will amend this complaint when the same is ascertained. At times relevant
13 herein, agents for P & A REALTY include, but are not limited to ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ and
14 JULIA N. ZULETA.
15 11. At all times relevant herein, P & A REALTY conducts business under various names
16 including those of the named DEFENDANTS in this action, including but not limited to
17 DEFENDANT LINARES.
18 12. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANT P & A REALTY acted on behalf of the
19 other named DEFENDANTS as property manager for the PREMISES, and on information and
20 belief, was and is employing individuals in the City and County of San Francisco.
21 13. At times relevant herein, DEFENDANT ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ
22 (“BOJORQUEZ”) is an individual, residing and/or doing business in the City and County of San
23 Francisco.
24 14. At all times relevant herein, BOJORQUEZ served as property manager and/or principal
25 point of contact for communications related to the PREMISES, including but not limited to,
26 PLAINTIFFS’ requests for repairs and requests for reasonable accommodation. At times relevant
27 herein, BOJORQUEZ is also referred to as “Orlando.” At times relevant herein, BOJORQUEZ
28 resides and/or does business in the City and County of San Francisco.
-3-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 15. At times relevant herein, DEFENDANT JULIA N. ZULETA (“ZULETA”) is an
2 individual, residing and/or doing business in the City and County of San Francisco. At all times
3 relevant herein, ZULETA served as property manager and/or principal point of contact for
4 communications related to the PREMISES, including but not limited to, PLAINTIFFS’ requests for
5 repairs and requests for reasonable accommodation. At times relevant herein, ZULETA is also
6 referred to as “Juliz”.
7 16. On information and belief, each of the named DEFENDANTS, including without
8 limitation the DOE DEFENDANTS, are liable for PLAINTIFFS’ damages, as the agents,
9 employees and/or principals of their Co-DEFENDANTS, and engaged in acts “wrongful in their
10 nature” that give rise to liability directly to PLAINTIFFS in their agency capacity. (Civ. Code §
11 2343).
12 17. Unless otherwise qualified, wherever in this COMPLAINT, reference is made to
13 DEFENDANTS, such allegations shall be deemed to collectively refer to all named
14 DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, or their officers, agents,
15 managers, representatives, employees, heirs, assignees, and that each of these did or authorized such
16 acts while actively engaged in the operation, management, direction or control of co-
17 DEFENDANTS’ affairs and while acting within the course and scope of their duties
18 (“DEFENDANTS”).
19 18. DEFENDANTS named as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are sued as
20 fictitious names, their true names and capacities being unknown to PLAINTIFFS. When their true
21 names and capacities are ascertained, PLAINTIFFS will file an amended complaint designating each
22 DOE DEFENDANT by his/her/its/their true name and capacity.
23 19. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the named
24 DEFENDANTS, including the fictitiously named DEFENDANTS, are responsible in some
25 manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and said DEFENDANTS proximately caused, are
26 responsible for, and/or legally liable in some way for PLAINTIFFS’ damages as herein alleged.
27 20. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, during the course of the TENANCY, employed
28 agents in leasing, managing, and/or performing services at the PREMISES. PLAINTIFFS are
-4-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that in doing the things herein alleged, DEFENDANTS,
2 and each of them, including without limitation the DOE DEFENDANTS, were acting as the agents
3 and/or employees of their Co-DEFENDANTS, and were generally acting within the course and
4 scope of their agency and employment.
5 II. HOUSING DISCRIMINATION/RELIEF UNDER FEHA
6 21. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them qualify as “aggrieved
7 persons” entitled to relief under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government
8 Code section 12900, et seq.
9 22. At all times relevant herein, SHAWN is a qualified person with disabilities, entitled to
10 relief as an “aggrieved person” pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Government
11 Code § 12927 (g) (“ ‘Aggrieved person’ includes any person who claims to have been injured by a
12 discriminatory housing practice or believes that the person will be injured by a discriminatory
13 housing practice that is about to occur”.)
14 23. As a person with disabilities, SHAWN is protected from discrimination in housing based
15 on disability or perceived disability. (Govt. Code § 12955(a),(d) [prohibiting discrimination by
16 owner of any housing accommodation based on disability].)
17 24. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF LUCIA and PLAINTIFF JASON are also
18 “aggrieved persons” with standing to pursue claims for discrimination under FEHA. Aggrieved
19 persons include those associated with a person with a disabilities. (“ASSOCIATIONAL
20 DISCRIMINATION”) ( Govt. Code § 12955 (m) [prohibited discrimination includes “a
21 perception that the person who has those characteristics [i.e., as to protected classes including but
22 not limited to in relevant part here, “physical disability, mental disability, and medical condition.”] or
23 that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those
24 characteristics) (emphasis added in italics).]
25 25. PLAINTIFF LUCIA, as the natural parent and caregiver for SHAWN, as well as
26 PLAINTIFF JASON, the brother of SHAWN, are all members of the same residential household,
27 and suffered harms “specific, direct, and separate” as individuals from discriminatory actions
28 committed by DEFENDANTS, and prohibited under FEHA. PLAINTIFFS, and each of them,
-5-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 lost their housing.
2 26. Both Federal and State Courts have allowed ASSOCIATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
3 claims to proceed under similar circumstances.
4 (See Lee v. Retail Store Employee Bldg. Corp. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017) 2017 WL 346021, at
5 *8-9 (plaintiff who was a live-in attendant for relative had standing to sue under FHA and
FEHA where landlord unlawfully evicted relative for discriminatory reasons)[“if Maria
6 [disabled daughter] was evicted for a discriminatory reason, Wen [nondisabled mother] was
also evicted and was thereby injured by the same discriminatory housing practice”]); Huynh
7 v. Bracamontes (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016) 2016 WL 3683048, at *2–3 (non-disabled plaintiff
adequately alleged associational discrimination claim where the plaintiff brought her disabled
8 daughter to a nail salon and could not locate a wheelchair-accessible parking spot,
which “deterred [the plaintiff] from visiting the [salon] with her daughter); see also
9
Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (1972) 409 U.S. 205 (1972), (PLAINTIFFS
10 associated with the same housing complex are aggrieved persons under the federal Fair
Housing Act, and allowed to proceed based on associational discrimination based on race );
11 Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, LP (2011) 562 U.S. 170, 177-1787 (Aggrieved person
under Title VII include those whose interest “falls within the zone of interests sought to be
12 protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for [the]
complaint.” and “arguably sought to be protected by the statute).)
13
27. Each of the named DEFENDANTS, including the DOE DEFENDANTS is an
14
“owner” within the meaning of FEHA. (Govt. Code § 12927(e) (wherein “owner” is defined to
15
include “lessee, . . . managing agent, real estate broker or salesperson, or any person having any legal
16
or equitable right of ownership or possession or the right to rent or lease housing accommodations,.
17
. .”.)
18
28. The PREMISES constitutes a “housing accommodation” within the meaning of the
19
FEHA. (Govt. Code § 12927(d).)
20
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21
29. Jurisdiction and venue in the County are proper because DEFENDANTS, and each of
22
them, purposefully established minimum contacts in this County and do business in this County.
23
30. PLAINTIFFS’ damages exceed $35,000, the minimum jurisdictional amount of this
24
Court.
25
IV. FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
26
31. PLAINTIFFS are former tenants at the PREMISES, 1272 Gray Hawk Lane, Suisun City,
27
California 94585 – a single family home owned and/or managed by defendants named herein,
28
-6-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 located in Solano County.
2 32. SHAWN lives with severe developmental and mental disabilities. At a young age, he was
3 diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and obsessive compulsive disorder (“OCD”).
4 33. In 2017, SHAWN received his first emotional support animal, a cat (“DWIGHT”). As
5 verified by his doctor, Dwight helped alleviate the symptoms of SHAWN’s mental illness.
6 34. Prior to moving to the PREMISES in or about September 2020, from a time in
7 or around 2017 or 2018, PLAINTIFFS had been living at an apartment at a Fairfield address
8 where her rent was subsidized with a Housing Choice Voucher from the Fairfield Housing
9 Authority.
10 35. In or around May 2020, SHAWN was also diagnosed with schizophrenia.
11 36. After onset of additional symptoms related to schizophrenia, SHAWN began needing
12 additional support. He experienced increasing episodes of psychosis, during which the line between
13 imagination and reality blurred wherein SHAWN experienced great distress, triggering tantrums,
14 including yelling and extreme anxiety.
15 37. In or about July 2020, LUCIA adopted a second emotional support animal, a dog
16 (“ORYAN”). In focusing on care for ORYAN, SHAWN had routine and left the house for play
17 and walks.
18 38. ORYAN, as an emotional support dog, was able to help SHAWN in ways that the cat
19 could not. SHAWN developed a very close emotional bond with ORYAN. Although the cat had
20 been helpful in soothing symptoms of ASD and OCD, the onset of schizophrenia necessitated a
21 different kind of support.
22 39. As new symptoms developed, LUCIA adapted to the needs of her son, doing whatever
23 she could to provide him comfort. She adopted animals only after careful consideration of
24 circumstances and meeting SHAWN’s needs.
25 40. As SHAWN’s needs and symptoms worsened, PLAINTIFF LUCIA found it necessary to
26 move to a bigger place, a single-family home with at least four bedrooms (where one of the
27 bedrooms could be for a live-in care provider). PLAINTIFF LUCIA was approved for a Housing
28 Choicer Voucher from the Fairfield Housing Authority, with reasonable accommodation for
-7-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 SHAWN’s disability needs, including allowance for an extra bedroom for a live-in aid.
2 41. Unfortunately, PLAINTIFF LUCIA could not find anything suitable in Fairfield so she
3 began looking elsewhere, including nearby Suisun City.
4 42. In or around June 2020, PLAINTIFFS LUCIA, SHAWN and JASON , attended an open
5 house at the subject PREMISES. There, she first met JULIAN N. ZULETA who identified herself
6 as an agent of DEFENDANT P & A REALTY. LUCIA recalls having seen a craigslist ad for a 4
7 bedroom home in Suisun City and “Section 8 okay”. During this open house, LUCIA recalls
8 meeting DEFENDANT LINARES, who lived nearby. LUCIA expressed hope to be approved and
9 explained that she was in the process of transferring her Housing Choice Voucher to Suisun City.
10 DEFENDANT LINARES told LUCIA to fill out the application and the home, and the home
11 would be hers.
12 43. In or around June 2020, in the days after meeting LINARES, LUCIA submitted the
13 rental application. DEFENDANT ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ, on behalf of P & A REALTY
14 contacted her, and said even though LUCIA’s credit scores were “not too high”, he had spoken with
15 LINARES who wanted PLAINTIFFS to be his tenants.
16 A. MOVING ONTO THE PREMISES
17 44. On or around August 20, 2020, DEFENDANT LINARES signed an agreement with
18 Community Action North Bay wherein he agreed to accept $6,400.00 in funds on behalf of
19 PLAINTIFF LUCIA, to apply to first month’s rent at the PREMISES ($3,200.00) and security
20 deposit ($3,200.00). On information and belief, said funds were tendered to DEFENDANTS at or
21 around move-in.
22 45. In or about September 2020, PLAINTIFFS LUCIA, SHAWN, and JASON, and each of
23 them moved onto the subject PREMISES, the 4 -bedroom single family home located at 1272 Gray
24 Hawk Lane, Suisun City, California 94585.
25 B. MOVE WAS DELAYED
26 46. PLAINTIFFS’ move to the PREMISES was delayed because PLAINTIFF LUCIA was
27 unable to transfer her Housing Choice Voucher from Fairfield to Suisun City. The Suisun City
28 Housing Authority (“SCHA”) denied LUCIA’s reasonable accommodation request, approving a
-8-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 voucher only for two-bedrooms.
2 47. At all times relevant herein during the TENANCY and in light of SCHA’s wrongful
3 denial of a 4-bedroom Housing Choice Voucher, PLAINTIFF LUCIA became SHAWN’s live-in
4 care taker for which she received payment by In-Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”).
5 48. Subsequently in a separate action and through counsel from Fair Housing Advocates of
6 Northern California (“FHANC”), an administrative complaint was filed with the Department of
7 Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) against the SCHA (“SCHA COMPLAINT”) Case
8 Number 202104-13293319 (Gillis v. Suisun City Housing Authority, et al.)for failing to
9 accommodate SHAWN’s disability.
10 49. On October 4, 2021, the SCHA CASE settled in or around October 2021 in favor of
11 LUCIA ($75,000.00 in monetary damages and SCHA agreeing to modify policies, practices, and
12 undergo fair housing training regarding reasonable accommodation requests.).
13 50. Because the PREMISES , a four-bedroom unit, accommodated SHAWN’s needs,
14 PLAINTIFF LUCIA moved on the PREMISES, paying full market rent at $3,200.00 a month,
15 opting to forego the SCHA two-bedroom voucher for the time being to appeal and/or ask for
16 reconsideration.
17 51. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCY was not subsidized.
18 C. THE LEASE
19 52. On information and belief, the lease (“LEASE”) under which the Premises are rented
20 identifies signatory parties therein as LUCIA GILLIS and OSCAR LINARES identified therein
21 respectively as “Tenant” and “Landlord”. On information and belief, the LEASE identified therein
22 DEFENDANT P & A REALTY as a licensed real estate broker, the “Leasing Firm”, and the
23 “Listing Firm”, and wherein “ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ” is identified as the agent to sign on
24 behalf of DEFENDANT P & A REALTY.
25 53. On information and belief, the Lease also included a “RENT CAP AND JUST CAUSE
26 ADDENDUM” confirming PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCY is subject to Just Cause provision sunder
27 Civil Code section 1946.2 and Rent Cap provision of Civil Code section 1947.12. At all times
28 relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCY remained subject to subject to Just Cause provision
-9-
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 sunder Civil Code section 1946.2 and Rent Cap provision of Civil Code section 1947.12.
2 54. On information and belief, the Lease provides express terms that include, but are not
3 limited to: (a) provisions for entry by landlord to make necessary or agreed repairs (including, but
4 not limited to, installing, repairing, testing, . . . or repairing dilapidation relating to the presence of
5 mold). . . (LEASE at Para. 19A); (c) Landlord’s duty to abate rent if the Premises become “totally or
6 partially uninhabitable”, and to “promptly repair the damage” including proration and abatement of
7 rent “to the extent to which the damage interferes with the Tenant’s reasonable use of Premises.
8 (Id., at Para. 28).
9 55. PLAINTIFF LUCIA qualifies as a person who “hire[s] a dwelling” (i.e. residential tenant)
10 as defined by Civil Code section 1940 and avails herself of all rights, remedies, and benefits thereto.
11 56. By way of monthly payment of rent, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, are also a common
12 law tenant at the Premises.
13 57. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have been landlords or agents thereof, under
14 common law, contract, and through conduct and communications consistent with the same.
15 58. Upon taking possession of the Premises in or around September 2020, PLAINTIFFS,
16 and each of them, observed none of the structural defects or uninhabitable conditions alleged
17 herein. They relied upon the assurances of DEFENDANTS that the Premises were habitable.
18 59. However, on information and belief and at times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF alleges
19 that DEFENDANTS were aware, but did not disclose, that the Premises were defective, unsafe, and
20 uninhabitable for reasons as evidenced by defects, including but not limited to: roof/ceiling leaks;
21 plumbing defects (i.e. leaky tub).
22 60. In the months prior to the September 2020 move-in, and during the TENANCY,
23 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were aware of SHAWN’s disabilities.
24 61. At move-in, DEFENDANT LINARES was aware that PLAINTIFF LUCIA no longer
25 had a Housing Choice Voucher to help cover rent. LINARES to work with LUCIA by not
26 requiring her to pay water or trash.
27 62. PLAINTIFF LUCIA had previously provided paperwork to SCHA stating that
28 Complainant would be responsible for paying the cost of water, once her subsidy fell through
- 10 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 DEFENDANT LINARES agreed to forego that requirement This was also consistent with the
2 lease initially presented to LUCIA in July 2020, wherein it was also confirmed that she would not be
3 responsible for trash and water bills..
4 63. In December 2020 via text messages, DEFENDANT BOJORQUEZ told PLAINTIFF
5 LUCIA that she was to pay for the water bill. After LUCIA explained that LINARES agreed not to
6 charge her for water, BOJORQUEZ orally agreed that LUCIA would not be responsible for the
7 water bill.
8 64. At least as early the beginning of February 2021, the roof began to leak at the
9 PREMISES. From this time through the end of her TENANCY on or around March 9, 2022,
10 PLAINTIFF LUCIA made follow up requests to fix the roof, but DEFENDANTS refused.
11 65. On or around April 9, 2021, via text, PLAINTIFF LUCIA texted DEFENDANT
12 LINARES on her ongoing request to fix the leak in the ceiling, cracked sheetrock and carpet stains.
13 66. To this, DEFENDANT LINARES said LUCIA was behind on rent and accused her of
14 not having reported the leak sooner. LUCIA denied this and pleading that the leak be fixed (“. . .
15 And no sir I believe what happened with the water was exactly what I told you happened and the
16 reason [it was] cracked and because there was a lot of water. And when water comes out it has to
17 come out of somewhere so it made a crack. But I called right away . . .”
18 67. Around the beginning of July 2021, there was a scheduled inspection to the PREMISES.
19 In addition to PLAINTIFF LUCIA, DEFENDANTS ZULETA, BOJORQUEZ and LINARES
20 were in attendance.
21 68. DEFENDANTS discovered the presence of three emotional support animals, for
22 SHAWN, including ORYAN the dog, DWIGHT the cat, and a second emotional support cat who
23 had been adopted to help SHAWN.
24 69. PLAINTIFF LUCIA made an oral request for reasonable accommodation, explaining
25 that the emotional support animals were for SHAWN, who needed them to cope with mental health
26 symptoms. DEFENDANT BOJORUQEZ told PLAINTIFF LUCIA that she was not permitted
27 to have pets and to get rid of the animals.
28 70. On or about July 9, 2021, PLAINTIFF LUCIA sent a written reasonable accommodation
- 11 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 request (“July 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request”) to DEFENDANTS. LUCIA texted
2 BOJORQUEZ that the emotional support animals were necessary because her son, SHAWN, was
3 disabled and offered to provide a doctor’s letter in support.
4 71. In response, BOJORQUEZ texted: “I believe the lease agreement stipulates that no pets
5 are allowed… In my opinion you should have asked the landlord permission to have pets in the
6 property.”
7 72. Also in the same text exchange on or about July 9, 2021, LUCIA confirmed the ceiling
8 continued to leak and requested repairs. In response, BOJORQUEZ texted: “It has been a
9 challenge to get the right company to take a look at the ceiling damage”, but gave no date as when
10 someone would be sent out.
11 73. On or about July 25, 2021, DEFENDANTS served upon PLAINTIFFS a “NOTICE
12 OF CHANGE IN TERMS OF TENANCY” (“July 2021 Non-Renewal Notice”) stating therein
13 that PLAINTIFFS’ Lease would not be extended because of alleged breach of the pet policy
14 because: “TENANT HAS POSSESION [sic] OF TWO CATS AND A DOG IN THE
15 PROPERTY AND TRIED TO HIDE IT FROM LANDLORD.” The July 25, 2021 Non-
16 Renewal Notice stated the change would take effect “30 days of service or on 08/31/2021, . . .
17 whichever is later.”
18 74. In response to the July 25, 2021 Notice, PLAINTIFF LUCIA communicated with
19 DEFENDANTS reiterating that the animals were emotional support animals and that it would be
20 discriminatory for a landlord to evict a tenant for requesting a reasonable accommodation.
21 75. PLAINTIFF LUCIA offered to provide a doctor’s note in support. BOJORQUEZ
22 refused, pointing out that the LEASE does not allow for pets.
23 76. In or around August/September 2021, LINARES sent written notice to PLAINTIFF
24 LUCIA that she was to pay for the monthly trash bill and to put the account in her name. Prior to
25 this, LINARES had agreed to pay for the monthly trash.
26 77. Although this was a hardship, LUCIA put the trash bill in her name. PLAINTIFF
27 LUCIA became responsible for the monthly trash bill, retroactively, from at least April 1, 2021.
28 78. In or around August/September 2021, DEFENDANT LINARES via telephone and in
- 12 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 person told PLAINTIFF LUCIA of intention to redo the LEASE and monthly rent would increase
2 from $3,200 to $3,450.
3 79. On or around August 27, 2021, DEFENDANTS served upon PLAINTIFFS a new
4 “NOTICE OF CHANGE IN TERMS OF TENANCY” (“August 2021 Non-Renewal Notice”),
5 nearly identical to the July 2021 Notice except that PLAINTIFFS’ Lease would be extended to
6 9/30/2021; that PLAINTIFFS were to vacate the PREMISES by 9/30/2021; and that “OWNER
7 WILL NOT EXTEND THE LEASE ANY MORE.”
8 80. In response to the August 2021 Non-Renewal Notice, PLAINTIFF LUCIA
9 communicated with DEFENDANTS renewing requests for reasonable accommodation and that it
10 was a violation of Fair Housing Law to refuse to renew her Lease because of the presence of their
11 emotional support animals. Nonetheless, fearing the loss of their housing, LUCIA re-homed all
12 three emotional support animals.
13 81. Shortly thereafter however, SHAWN began experiencing extreme stress and anxiety,
14 including severe panic attacks with prolonged screaming and crying. It was clear to LUCIA that the
15 loss of ORYAN was severely exacerbating the symptoms of his disabilities. SHAWN clamored for
16 the dog and believed that the dog had been stolen. Seeing her son in such distress, PLAINTIFF
17 LUCIA brought back the dog, hoping that DEFENDANTS would allow the dog to stay, as a
18 necessary and reasonable accommodation for SHAWN’s disabilities.
19 82. Sometime between issuance of the August 27 2021 Non-Renewal Notice and September
20 7, 2021, BOJORQUEZ went to the PREMISES and delivered to LUCIA all the water bills since
21 inception of the TENANCY, stating that now that was moving out she would need to pay for all of
22 her water usage, a sum in excess of $1,000.00.
23 83. To this, PLAINTIFF LUCIA called DEFENDANT ZULETA, asking for confirmation
24 that she was in fact responsible for all water bills, in light of the previous agreement that landlord
25 would be responsible for the same.
26 84. On September 7, 2021, ZULETA responded via voicemail stating:
27 “You don’t need to pay that water bill . . . so forget about Orlando [Bojorquez] said
28 because Oscar [LINARES] already said you don’t have to pay for those bills.”
- 13 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 85. On or about September 9, 2021, PLAINTIFF LUCIA obtained a letter from SHAWN’s
2 doctor, Dr. Matthew Holve (“Dr. Holve’s 2021 Medical Verification”), therein confirming
3 SHAWN’s disabilities; his familiarity with SHAWN’s disabilities and long-term relationship, and
4 need for emotional support animal, stating therein:
5 “I am intimately familiar with the [SHAWN’s] history and with the functional limitations
6 imposed by his disability. He meets the definition of disability under the American[s] [sic]
with Disabilities Act, The Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Per our
7 records he has had an emotional support animal since July of 2020.
8 Due to his illness, he has certain limitations regarding housing. In order to alleviate these
difficulties, and to enhance his ability to live independently and to fully use and enjoy the
9 housing . . . , I am prescribing an emotional support animal that will assist hi[m] in coping
with his disability.”
10
86. On or about September 10, 2021, PLAINTIFF LUCIA sent a follow-up written request
11
(“September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request”) for reasonable accommodation,
12
requesting rescission of the Notices of Non-Renewal, confirmed that the two emotional support
13
cats were rehomed, but requested accommodation to allow for dog ORYAN to remain at the
14
PREMISES. Therein, LUCIA further explained that while landlords may prohibit tenants from
15
having pets, such prohibitions may not be applied to emotional support animals because an
16
emotional support animal is not considered a pet; rather it is a tool used to assist a person with a
17
disability.
18
87. Furthermore, in the September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request, it stated :
19
20 Shawn’s disability is known to you because when we moved in one year ago, we discussed
that he had a live-in aide who assisted with his daily functioning. Ultimately, the live-in aide
21 did not move in with us. Nevertheless, our discussions regarding the live-in aid alerted you
to the severity of Shawn’s disability. . .
22
88. Therein, PLAINTIFF LUCIA referenced the prior July 2021 Reasonable
23
Accommodation Request; offered to provide further verification of SHAWNS’s disabilities upon
24
request by DEFENDANTS; and asked for DEFENDANTS’ response by September 17, 2021.
25
89. While PLAINTIFF LUCIA did not attach Dr. Holve’s 2021 Medical Verification to the
26
September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request, she stood ready to provide it if
27
DEFENDANTS asked. But they did not.
28
- 14 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 90. DEFENDANTS never responded to the September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation
2 Request. Thereafter, ORYAN remained at the PREMISES.
3 91. On or about September 21, 2021, the Department of Resource Management’s
4 Environmental Health Division of Solano County (hereinafter referred to as “Environmental
5 Health”) sent a letter to DEFENDANT LINARES entitled “Notice of Violation” (“First Notice
6 of Violation”)regarding the PREMISES. Therein, it confirmed receipt of a complaint on
7 September 16, 2021 regarding the “damaged ceiling” at the PREMISES. Pursuant to an inspection
8 conducted on September 21, 2021, the PREMISES were for violations of the California Health and
9 Safety Code Section 17920.3 as follows:
10 (B) (6) defective material/deterioration of ceiling: Portion of ceiling in the living room
11 adjacent to rear backyard exit observed peeling and with possible water leak damage. The
current tenant provided a screen shot of a claimed text conversation with you, dated April 9th
12 [2021] regarding an alleged water leak damage from above affected ceiling area in living room
(see photos)
13
92. The First Notice of Violation ordered abatement to be completed “no later than October
14
8, 2021”. This First Notice alleges a copy was sent to the Suisun City Building Department and
15
LUCIA GILLIS.
16
93. On or about September 21, 2021, the Department of Resource Management’s
17
Environmental Health Division of Solano County (hereinafter referred to as “Environmental
18
Health”) sent a letter to DEFENDANT LINARES entitled “Notice of Violation” (“First Notice
19
of Violation”) regarding the PREMISES .
20
94. DEFENDANTS failed to abate defects regarding the ceiling on or before October 8,
21
2021 as ordered by Environmental Health.
22
95. On or around October 28, 2021, DEFENDANT LINARES texted PLAINTIFF LUCIA
23
that she was to pay for the monthly water bill and to put the account in her name, even though
24
LINARES had previously agreed to be responsible for that.
25
96. To this on October 29, 2021 via text, LUCIA said it would be a hardship to be
26
responsible for water after making her responsible for the trash; and further objected to LINARES’
27
prior statements that he would raise the rent. (“I feel like I am getting pushed out”; and asking “Do
28
- 15 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 you accept my reasonable accommodation for my animal?”).
2 97. On or about November 23, 2021, DEFENDANTS served upon PLAINTIFFS a
3 “NOTICE TO CURE OR QUIT” (“November 2021 Notice”), alleging breach of the rental
4 agreement and demanding therein:
5 “You and other occupants must cease with disturbing or annoying other tenants or
6 neighbors.”
7 98. The November 2021 Notice his Notice was signed by Thomas R. Healy, who identified
8 himself as attorney for the Landlord, OSCAR LINARES.
9 99. While the November 2021 Disturbing Notice did not state any facts in support on how
10 PLAINTIFFS were “disturbing or annoying other tenants or neighbors”, PLAINTIFF LUCIA
11 believed that this might be referring to noise caused by SHAWN, who has trouble controlling his
12 body volume due to his disabilities.
13 100. Shortly after receipt of the November 2021 Notice, LUCIA called LINARES asking for
14 explanation. LINARES said that BOJORQUEZ had received complaints from neighbors about
15 noise from PLAINTIFFS. Subsequently, LUCIA interviewed surrounding neighbors about this but
16 they were unaware of any noise complaints against PLAINTIFFS. LUCIA called LINARES back to
17 report this. To this, LINARES said to “forget about it” [the November 2021 Notice].
18 101. On or around January 5, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA received a letter from the law
19 office of Thomas R. Healy (“Healy Letter”). Therein, it stated:
20 This office has been retained by Oscar Linares with regard to the [PREMISES]. Because
your current lease has expired, Mr. Linares asked that I prepare a new lease. Note that the
21 rent will increase to $3,450/month and the security deposit will increase to $6,900 as of April
1, 2022.
22
102. The Healy Letter requested LUCIA’s signature and agreement to a new lease that would
23
include such terms.
24
103. On January 11, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA sent an e-mail to Mr. Healy, stating the
25
following:
26
Mr. Healy,
27
28
- 16 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
Before signing the new lease would you be able to speak to the Landlord as you are the
1 go between about a pressing matter with a public Heath [sic] issue of a leaky roof that
2 has been going on for about 10 months? I have asked him to fix this with no response.
The damage possibly could be getting worse with no action. Because of no response
3 after months (damage occurred March 2021) I called the health dept and they did an
inspection and the determined it needed to be fix so they also sent Mr. Linares a letter
4 requesting for him to fix this by October 8th 2021 and he never answered them either.
He never answered me or them as to when he would fix this problem. The only thing I
5 got was from one of his assistants that said he planned on fixing it when I moved out of
the property. I thought maybe you could be able to help get some answers as when this
6
will be fixed as this is an important public health matter.
7
104. To this e-mail, PLAINTIFF LUCIA attached copy of the First Notice of Violation
8
from Environmental Health, dated September 21, 2021.
9
105. On January 20, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA and DEFENDANT LINARES exchanged
10
text communications involving repairs to be performed regarding “the upstairs bath tub leaking to
11
the downstair[s]. . .” and wherein LINARES stated he would send a contractor to the PREMISES
12
on January 22, 2022.
13
106. On or around January 22, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA mailed a handwritten letter to
14
DEFENDANT LINARES stating therein:
15
I am requesting that you repair the ceiling leak that I notified you about on March 2021 that
16 still has not been addressed as to date. I am requesting for you to fix this problem back to its
original working order prior to the leak from 30 day from this date.
17
18 107. On January 26 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA texted DEFENDANT LINARES multiple
19 times, confirming ongoing defects with the upstairs bathtub leak, LUCIA asking for help because
20 the plumber did not “have water” to address “overflow in the tub.” Texts confirm LINARES failed
21 to respond that day and through January 27, 2022.
22 108. On or about January 27, 2022, Solano County’s Environmental Health sent a follow
23 letter to DEFENDANT LINARES entitled “Notice of Violation” (“Second Notice of
24 Violation”)regarding the PREMISES . Therein, it reconfirmed receipt of a complaint on September
25 16, 2021 regarding the “damaged ceiling” at the PREMISES and the prior inspection of September
26 18, 2021 wherein defects were confirmed. Pursuant to a follow up inspection of January 18, 2022,
27 the Second Notice of Violation reconfirmed ongoing and unabated defects:
28 109. The following violations of the California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 were
- 17 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 and shall be corrected:
2 1. (B) (6) defective material/deterioration of ceiling: Portion of ceiling in the living room
3 adjacent to rear backyard exit observed peeling and with possible water leak damage. The
current tenant provided a screen shot of a claimed text conversation with you, dated April 9th
4 [2021] regarding an alleged water leak damage from above affected ceiling area in living room
(see photos of ceiling-repeat complaint)
5
110. The Second Notice of Violation also confirmed that Environmental Health received no
6
response to the First Notice of Violation in September 2021, Environmental Health.
7
111. The Second Notice of Violation directed abatement of defects to be performed. This
8
Second Notice alleges a copy was sent to the Suisun City Building Department, LUCIA GILLIS,
9
and Thomas Healy, who was identified as “property manager”.
10
112. PLAINTIFFS wanted to continue living at the PREMISES. However, because of
11
increased rent, increased security deposit, failures to provide reasonable accommodation, and
12
repeated and ongoing failures and refusals to remedy defects, PLAINTIFF LUCIA gave 30 day
13
notice of intent to vacate on before 5 p.m. on March 9, 2022. This was sent via e-amil on
14
February 9, 2022 to Mr. Healy, LINARES’ counsel.
15
113. On March 9, 2022, PLAINTIFFS vacated the PREMISES as noticed.
16
114. To date, DEFENDANTS have failed and continue to fail to return or provide
17
accounting for PLAINTIFFS’ security deposit in compliance with California law.
18
D. DFEH COMPLAINT
19
115. ON or about May 5, 2022, through counsel from the Fair Housing Advocates of
20
Northern California (FHANC), LUCIA GILLIS filed an administrative complaint with the
21
Department of Fair Employment Housing (“DFEH”), Case No. 202112-15526001 (“Fair
22
Housing Complaint”), regarding the Tenancy. Named therein as Respondents OSCAR
23
LINARES, P & A REALTY, ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ and Juliz [sic] ZULETA (collectively
24
referenced therein as “Respondents” )
25
116. In addition to LUCIA, the Fair Housing Complaint identified therein other aggrieved
26
parties as SHAWN and JASON.
27
117. In said Fair Housing Complaint, allegations included but were not limited to claims of
28
- 18 -
Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 retaliation and discrimination pursuant to Government Code § 12955 and Civil Code § 51, et seq.
2 118. On or about July 11, 2022, Respondents filed response denying allegations of the Fair
3 Housing Complaint.
4 119. On or about July 27, 2022, through counsel LUCIA filed rebuttal with supporting
5 documentation and evidence.
6 120. On or around February 22, 2023, as the parties were not able to reach settlement,
7 LUCIA submitted a request to withdraw the Fair Housing Complaint was withdrawn in order to file
8 a private lawsuit.
9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
11 (TERMINATION OF LEASE IN CONNECTION WITH HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS)
12 FEHA, Govt. Code §§ 12955(a), (k), (m), and 12927(c)(1),(g)
13 (ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT ZULETA)
14 121. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference each paragraph previously alleged
15 as though fully set forth herein.
16 122. Pursuant to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California’s public
17 policy is to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to “seek, obtain, and hold
18 housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sexual orientation . . . physical disability,
19 mental disability, medical condition, . . . or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code”
20 [Govt. Code §§ 12920 – 12921, et. seq.].
21 123. Furthermore, such opportunity to obtain and hold housing is “recognized as and declared
22 to be a civil right” [See Govt. Code § 12921(b)]. ((b) The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold
23 housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender
24 expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of
25 income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited
26 by Section 51 of th
Preview
Jeremy V. Reyes (SBN 236280) ELECTRONICALLY 1 Law Office of Jeremy V. Reyes 2300 Boynton Avenue, Suite 104C FILED 2 Superior Court of California, Fairfield, CA 94533 County of San Francisco 3 Telephone: 707.815.0088 03/12/2024 Fax: 888.400.0340 Clerk of the Court BY: AUSTIN LAM 4 jeremyreyeslaw@gmail.com Deputy Clerk 5 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN GILLIS, an Individual by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, LUCIA GILLIS; and JASON E. GILLIS, an Individual 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CGC-24-613060 10 LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN Case No. 11 GILLIS, an Individual and by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, LUCIA COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 12 GILLIS; and JASON E. GILLIS, an INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: Individual; 13 (1)-(5) Violations of California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Govt. Code §§ 12929, 12955, et seq. 14 v. (Termination of Lease; Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; Failure to Engage in 15 OSCAR LINARES, an Individual; P & the Interactive Process; Discriminatory Fees; 16 A REALTY; ORLANDO Retaliation); BOJORQUEZ, an Individual; JULIA N. (6) Breach of Contract; 17 ZULETA, an Individual; and DOES 1 (7) Negligence; through 50, inclusive; (8) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability – 18 Contract; (9) Breach of the Statutory Warranty of Habitability – 19 DEFENDANTS. Tort; 20 (10) Nuisance; (11) Constructive Eviction; 21 (12) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (13) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; 22 (14) Unlawful Retaliation (Civ. Code § 1942.5); (15) Bad Faith Retention of Security Deposit (Civ. 23 Code § 1950.5); (16) Unfair Business Practices 24 25 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 26 PLAINTIFFS LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN GILLIS, an Individual and by and 27 through his Guardian Ad Litem, LUCIA GILLIS; and JASON E. GILLIS, an Individual, and each 28 of them, allege as follows: -1- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 I. PARTIES 2 1. On or about September 2020, PLAINTIFFS LUCIA GILLIS, an Individual; SHAWN 3 GILLIS, an Individual and by and through his Guardian Ad Litem LUCIA GILLIS; and JASON E. 4 GILLIS, an Individual, and each of them became residential tenants at the property commonly 5 known as 1272 Gray Hawk Lane, Suisun City, California 94585 (“PREMISES”), a single-family 6 home with four bedrooms. Their tenancy (“TENANCY”) refers to the time period of occupancy, 7 in or around September 2020, through a date on or before March 9, 2022 when PLAINTIFFS were 8 forced to vacate the PREMISES for reasons, including but not limited to: habitability defects, 9 unlawful discrimination, and unlawful retaliation. 10 2. Unless otherwise qualified, wherever in this complaint (“COMPLAINT”), reference is 11 made to PLAINTIFFS, such allegations shall be deemed to collectively refer to the three named 12 PLAINTIFFS (“PLAINTIFFS”). 13 3. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF LUCIA GILLIS (“LUCIA”) is a competent 14 adult residing in Solano County. LUCIA is the natural parent of SHAWN GILLIS and JASON E. 15 GILLIS. In addition, LUCIA has legal conservatorship over SHAWN GILLIS and is intended to 16 serve as Guardian Ad Litem for SHAWN GILLIS behalf in this action. At times relevant herein, 17 LUCIA is also referred to herein as “Lucia Delfina Gillis.” 18 4. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF SHAWN GILLIS, an Individual and by and 19 through his Guardian Ad Litem LUCIA GILLIS (“SHAWN”), is a resident of Solano County. 20 SHAWN has several disabilities, including but not limited to autism spectrum disorder, obsessive 21 compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. He requires a live-in aide, and he also needs an aide- 22 caregiver to care to supervise him at home and in public places. 23 5. During the TENANCY, SHAWN and JASON E. GILLIS (“JASON”) were minors. At 24 the time of the filing this action, PLAINTIFFS SHAWN and JASON are over 18 years of age. At 25 times relevant herein, JASON is also referred to as Jason Gillis, Jr. 26 6. Since vacating the PREMISES and at the time of filing this action, JASON is a 27 competent adult. 28 7. After vacating the PREMISES on or about March 9, 2022, PLAINTIFFS continue in -2- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 residence together, living as a family unit consistent with their TENANCY at the PREMISES. 2 8. DEFENDANTS OSCAR LINARES, P & A REALTY, ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ, 3 and JULIA N. ZULETA, are each sued herein respectively as individuals or in their capacity as 4 owner and/or property manager for the PREMISES during the TENANCY. 5 9. All times relevant herein, DEFENDANT OSCAR LINARES (“LINARES”), is the 6 owner of the PREMISES, who resides and does business in the City and County of San Francisco. 7 At times relevant herein, DEFENDANT LINARES also acted as property manager for the 8 PREMISES, and on information and belief, was and is employing individuals in the City and County 9 of San Francisco. At time relevant herein, LINARES is also referred to herein as “Oscar”. 10 10. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANT P & A REALTY and DOES 1 through 25, 11 (“P & A REALTY”) is a business, the exact form of organization of which is presently unknown to 12 PLAINTIFFS who will amend this complaint when the same is ascertained. At times relevant 13 herein, agents for P & A REALTY include, but are not limited to ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ and 14 JULIA N. ZULETA. 15 11. At all times relevant herein, P & A REALTY conducts business under various names 16 including those of the named DEFENDANTS in this action, including but not limited to 17 DEFENDANT LINARES. 18 12. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANT P & A REALTY acted on behalf of the 19 other named DEFENDANTS as property manager for the PREMISES, and on information and 20 belief, was and is employing individuals in the City and County of San Francisco. 21 13. At times relevant herein, DEFENDANT ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ 22 (“BOJORQUEZ”) is an individual, residing and/or doing business in the City and County of San 23 Francisco. 24 14. At all times relevant herein, BOJORQUEZ served as property manager and/or principal 25 point of contact for communications related to the PREMISES, including but not limited to, 26 PLAINTIFFS’ requests for repairs and requests for reasonable accommodation. At times relevant 27 herein, BOJORQUEZ is also referred to as “Orlando.” At times relevant herein, BOJORQUEZ 28 resides and/or does business in the City and County of San Francisco. -3- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 15. At times relevant herein, DEFENDANT JULIA N. ZULETA (“ZULETA”) is an 2 individual, residing and/or doing business in the City and County of San Francisco. At all times 3 relevant herein, ZULETA served as property manager and/or principal point of contact for 4 communications related to the PREMISES, including but not limited to, PLAINTIFFS’ requests for 5 repairs and requests for reasonable accommodation. At times relevant herein, ZULETA is also 6 referred to as “Juliz”. 7 16. On information and belief, each of the named DEFENDANTS, including without 8 limitation the DOE DEFENDANTS, are liable for PLAINTIFFS’ damages, as the agents, 9 employees and/or principals of their Co-DEFENDANTS, and engaged in acts “wrongful in their 10 nature” that give rise to liability directly to PLAINTIFFS in their agency capacity. (Civ. Code § 11 2343). 12 17. Unless otherwise qualified, wherever in this COMPLAINT, reference is made to 13 DEFENDANTS, such allegations shall be deemed to collectively refer to all named 14 DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, or their officers, agents, 15 managers, representatives, employees, heirs, assignees, and that each of these did or authorized such 16 acts while actively engaged in the operation, management, direction or control of co- 17 DEFENDANTS’ affairs and while acting within the course and scope of their duties 18 (“DEFENDANTS”). 19 18. DEFENDANTS named as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are sued as 20 fictitious names, their true names and capacities being unknown to PLAINTIFFS. When their true 21 names and capacities are ascertained, PLAINTIFFS will file an amended complaint designating each 22 DOE DEFENDANT by his/her/its/their true name and capacity. 23 19. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the named 24 DEFENDANTS, including the fictitiously named DEFENDANTS, are responsible in some 25 manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and said DEFENDANTS proximately caused, are 26 responsible for, and/or legally liable in some way for PLAINTIFFS’ damages as herein alleged. 27 20. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, during the course of the TENANCY, employed 28 agents in leasing, managing, and/or performing services at the PREMISES. PLAINTIFFS are -4- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that in doing the things herein alleged, DEFENDANTS, 2 and each of them, including without limitation the DOE DEFENDANTS, were acting as the agents 3 and/or employees of their Co-DEFENDANTS, and were generally acting within the course and 4 scope of their agency and employment. 5 II. HOUSING DISCRIMINATION/RELIEF UNDER FEHA 6 21. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them qualify as “aggrieved 7 persons” entitled to relief under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government 8 Code section 12900, et seq. 9 22. At all times relevant herein, SHAWN is a qualified person with disabilities, entitled to 10 relief as an “aggrieved person” pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Government 11 Code § 12927 (g) (“ ‘Aggrieved person’ includes any person who claims to have been injured by a 12 discriminatory housing practice or believes that the person will be injured by a discriminatory 13 housing practice that is about to occur”.) 14 23. As a person with disabilities, SHAWN is protected from discrimination in housing based 15 on disability or perceived disability. (Govt. Code § 12955(a),(d) [prohibiting discrimination by 16 owner of any housing accommodation based on disability].) 17 24. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF LUCIA and PLAINTIFF JASON are also 18 “aggrieved persons” with standing to pursue claims for discrimination under FEHA. Aggrieved 19 persons include those associated with a person with a disabilities. (“ASSOCIATIONAL 20 DISCRIMINATION”) ( Govt. Code § 12955 (m) [prohibited discrimination includes “a 21 perception that the person who has those characteristics [i.e., as to protected classes including but 22 not limited to in relevant part here, “physical disability, mental disability, and medical condition.”] or 23 that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those 24 characteristics) (emphasis added in italics).] 25 25. PLAINTIFF LUCIA, as the natural parent and caregiver for SHAWN, as well as 26 PLAINTIFF JASON, the brother of SHAWN, are all members of the same residential household, 27 and suffered harms “specific, direct, and separate” as individuals from discriminatory actions 28 committed by DEFENDANTS, and prohibited under FEHA. PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, -5- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 lost their housing. 2 26. Both Federal and State Courts have allowed ASSOCIATIONAL DISCRIMINATION 3 claims to proceed under similar circumstances. 4 (See Lee v. Retail Store Employee Bldg. Corp. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017) 2017 WL 346021, at 5 *8-9 (plaintiff who was a live-in attendant for relative had standing to sue under FHA and FEHA where landlord unlawfully evicted relative for discriminatory reasons)[“if Maria 6 [disabled daughter] was evicted for a discriminatory reason, Wen [nondisabled mother] was also evicted and was thereby injured by the same discriminatory housing practice”]); Huynh 7 v. Bracamontes (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016) 2016 WL 3683048, at *2–3 (non-disabled plaintiff adequately alleged associational discrimination claim where the plaintiff brought her disabled 8 daughter to a nail salon and could not locate a wheelchair-accessible parking spot, which “deterred [the plaintiff] from visiting the [salon] with her daughter); see also 9 Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (1972) 409 U.S. 205 (1972), (PLAINTIFFS 10 associated with the same housing complex are aggrieved persons under the federal Fair Housing Act, and allowed to proceed based on associational discrimination based on race ); 11 Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, LP (2011) 562 U.S. 170, 177-1787 (Aggrieved person under Title VII include those whose interest “falls within the zone of interests sought to be 12 protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for [the] complaint.” and “arguably sought to be protected by the statute).) 13 27. Each of the named DEFENDANTS, including the DOE DEFENDANTS is an 14 “owner” within the meaning of FEHA. (Govt. Code § 12927(e) (wherein “owner” is defined to 15 include “lessee, . . . managing agent, real estate broker or salesperson, or any person having any legal 16 or equitable right of ownership or possession or the right to rent or lease housing accommodations,. 17 . .”.) 18 28. The PREMISES constitutes a “housing accommodation” within the meaning of the 19 FEHA. (Govt. Code § 12927(d).) 20 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 29. Jurisdiction and venue in the County are proper because DEFENDANTS, and each of 22 them, purposefully established minimum contacts in this County and do business in this County. 23 30. PLAINTIFFS’ damages exceed $35,000, the minimum jurisdictional amount of this 24 Court. 25 IV. FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 26 31. PLAINTIFFS are former tenants at the PREMISES, 1272 Gray Hawk Lane, Suisun City, 27 California 94585 – a single family home owned and/or managed by defendants named herein, 28 -6- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 located in Solano County. 2 32. SHAWN lives with severe developmental and mental disabilities. At a young age, he was 3 diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and obsessive compulsive disorder (“OCD”). 4 33. In 2017, SHAWN received his first emotional support animal, a cat (“DWIGHT”). As 5 verified by his doctor, Dwight helped alleviate the symptoms of SHAWN’s mental illness. 6 34. Prior to moving to the PREMISES in or about September 2020, from a time in 7 or around 2017 or 2018, PLAINTIFFS had been living at an apartment at a Fairfield address 8 where her rent was subsidized with a Housing Choice Voucher from the Fairfield Housing 9 Authority. 10 35. In or around May 2020, SHAWN was also diagnosed with schizophrenia. 11 36. After onset of additional symptoms related to schizophrenia, SHAWN began needing 12 additional support. He experienced increasing episodes of psychosis, during which the line between 13 imagination and reality blurred wherein SHAWN experienced great distress, triggering tantrums, 14 including yelling and extreme anxiety. 15 37. In or about July 2020, LUCIA adopted a second emotional support animal, a dog 16 (“ORYAN”). In focusing on care for ORYAN, SHAWN had routine and left the house for play 17 and walks. 18 38. ORYAN, as an emotional support dog, was able to help SHAWN in ways that the cat 19 could not. SHAWN developed a very close emotional bond with ORYAN. Although the cat had 20 been helpful in soothing symptoms of ASD and OCD, the onset of schizophrenia necessitated a 21 different kind of support. 22 39. As new symptoms developed, LUCIA adapted to the needs of her son, doing whatever 23 she could to provide him comfort. She adopted animals only after careful consideration of 24 circumstances and meeting SHAWN’s needs. 25 40. As SHAWN’s needs and symptoms worsened, PLAINTIFF LUCIA found it necessary to 26 move to a bigger place, a single-family home with at least four bedrooms (where one of the 27 bedrooms could be for a live-in care provider). PLAINTIFF LUCIA was approved for a Housing 28 Choicer Voucher from the Fairfield Housing Authority, with reasonable accommodation for -7- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 SHAWN’s disability needs, including allowance for an extra bedroom for a live-in aid. 2 41. Unfortunately, PLAINTIFF LUCIA could not find anything suitable in Fairfield so she 3 began looking elsewhere, including nearby Suisun City. 4 42. In or around June 2020, PLAINTIFFS LUCIA, SHAWN and JASON , attended an open 5 house at the subject PREMISES. There, she first met JULIAN N. ZULETA who identified herself 6 as an agent of DEFENDANT P & A REALTY. LUCIA recalls having seen a craigslist ad for a 4 7 bedroom home in Suisun City and “Section 8 okay”. During this open house, LUCIA recalls 8 meeting DEFENDANT LINARES, who lived nearby. LUCIA expressed hope to be approved and 9 explained that she was in the process of transferring her Housing Choice Voucher to Suisun City. 10 DEFENDANT LINARES told LUCIA to fill out the application and the home, and the home 11 would be hers. 12 43. In or around June 2020, in the days after meeting LINARES, LUCIA submitted the 13 rental application. DEFENDANT ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ, on behalf of P & A REALTY 14 contacted her, and said even though LUCIA’s credit scores were “not too high”, he had spoken with 15 LINARES who wanted PLAINTIFFS to be his tenants. 16 A. MOVING ONTO THE PREMISES 17 44. On or around August 20, 2020, DEFENDANT LINARES signed an agreement with 18 Community Action North Bay wherein he agreed to accept $6,400.00 in funds on behalf of 19 PLAINTIFF LUCIA, to apply to first month’s rent at the PREMISES ($3,200.00) and security 20 deposit ($3,200.00). On information and belief, said funds were tendered to DEFENDANTS at or 21 around move-in. 22 45. In or about September 2020, PLAINTIFFS LUCIA, SHAWN, and JASON, and each of 23 them moved onto the subject PREMISES, the 4 -bedroom single family home located at 1272 Gray 24 Hawk Lane, Suisun City, California 94585. 25 B. MOVE WAS DELAYED 26 46. PLAINTIFFS’ move to the PREMISES was delayed because PLAINTIFF LUCIA was 27 unable to transfer her Housing Choice Voucher from Fairfield to Suisun City. The Suisun City 28 Housing Authority (“SCHA”) denied LUCIA’s reasonable accommodation request, approving a -8- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 voucher only for two-bedrooms. 2 47. At all times relevant herein during the TENANCY and in light of SCHA’s wrongful 3 denial of a 4-bedroom Housing Choice Voucher, PLAINTIFF LUCIA became SHAWN’s live-in 4 care taker for which she received payment by In-Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”). 5 48. Subsequently in a separate action and through counsel from Fair Housing Advocates of 6 Northern California (“FHANC”), an administrative complaint was filed with the Department of 7 Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) against the SCHA (“SCHA COMPLAINT”) Case 8 Number 202104-13293319 (Gillis v. Suisun City Housing Authority, et al.)for failing to 9 accommodate SHAWN’s disability. 10 49. On October 4, 2021, the SCHA CASE settled in or around October 2021 in favor of 11 LUCIA ($75,000.00 in monetary damages and SCHA agreeing to modify policies, practices, and 12 undergo fair housing training regarding reasonable accommodation requests.). 13 50. Because the PREMISES , a four-bedroom unit, accommodated SHAWN’s needs, 14 PLAINTIFF LUCIA moved on the PREMISES, paying full market rent at $3,200.00 a month, 15 opting to forego the SCHA two-bedroom voucher for the time being to appeal and/or ask for 16 reconsideration. 17 51. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCY was not subsidized. 18 C. THE LEASE 19 52. On information and belief, the lease (“LEASE”) under which the Premises are rented 20 identifies signatory parties therein as LUCIA GILLIS and OSCAR LINARES identified therein 21 respectively as “Tenant” and “Landlord”. On information and belief, the LEASE identified therein 22 DEFENDANT P & A REALTY as a licensed real estate broker, the “Leasing Firm”, and the 23 “Listing Firm”, and wherein “ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ” is identified as the agent to sign on 24 behalf of DEFENDANT P & A REALTY. 25 53. On information and belief, the Lease also included a “RENT CAP AND JUST CAUSE 26 ADDENDUM” confirming PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCY is subject to Just Cause provision sunder 27 Civil Code section 1946.2 and Rent Cap provision of Civil Code section 1947.12. At all times 28 relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCY remained subject to subject to Just Cause provision -9- Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 sunder Civil Code section 1946.2 and Rent Cap provision of Civil Code section 1947.12. 2 54. On information and belief, the Lease provides express terms that include, but are not 3 limited to: (a) provisions for entry by landlord to make necessary or agreed repairs (including, but 4 not limited to, installing, repairing, testing, . . . or repairing dilapidation relating to the presence of 5 mold). . . (LEASE at Para. 19A); (c) Landlord’s duty to abate rent if the Premises become “totally or 6 partially uninhabitable”, and to “promptly repair the damage” including proration and abatement of 7 rent “to the extent to which the damage interferes with the Tenant’s reasonable use of Premises. 8 (Id., at Para. 28). 9 55. PLAINTIFF LUCIA qualifies as a person who “hire[s] a dwelling” (i.e. residential tenant) 10 as defined by Civil Code section 1940 and avails herself of all rights, remedies, and benefits thereto. 11 56. By way of monthly payment of rent, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, are also a common 12 law tenant at the Premises. 13 57. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have been landlords or agents thereof, under 14 common law, contract, and through conduct and communications consistent with the same. 15 58. Upon taking possession of the Premises in or around September 2020, PLAINTIFFS, 16 and each of them, observed none of the structural defects or uninhabitable conditions alleged 17 herein. They relied upon the assurances of DEFENDANTS that the Premises were habitable. 18 59. However, on information and belief and at times relevant herein, PLAINTIFF alleges 19 that DEFENDANTS were aware, but did not disclose, that the Premises were defective, unsafe, and 20 uninhabitable for reasons as evidenced by defects, including but not limited to: roof/ceiling leaks; 21 plumbing defects (i.e. leaky tub). 22 60. In the months prior to the September 2020 move-in, and during the TENANCY, 23 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were aware of SHAWN’s disabilities. 24 61. At move-in, DEFENDANT LINARES was aware that PLAINTIFF LUCIA no longer 25 had a Housing Choice Voucher to help cover rent. LINARES to work with LUCIA by not 26 requiring her to pay water or trash. 27 62. PLAINTIFF LUCIA had previously provided paperwork to SCHA stating that 28 Complainant would be responsible for paying the cost of water, once her subsidy fell through - 10 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 DEFENDANT LINARES agreed to forego that requirement This was also consistent with the 2 lease initially presented to LUCIA in July 2020, wherein it was also confirmed that she would not be 3 responsible for trash and water bills.. 4 63. In December 2020 via text messages, DEFENDANT BOJORQUEZ told PLAINTIFF 5 LUCIA that she was to pay for the water bill. After LUCIA explained that LINARES agreed not to 6 charge her for water, BOJORQUEZ orally agreed that LUCIA would not be responsible for the 7 water bill. 8 64. At least as early the beginning of February 2021, the roof began to leak at the 9 PREMISES. From this time through the end of her TENANCY on or around March 9, 2022, 10 PLAINTIFF LUCIA made follow up requests to fix the roof, but DEFENDANTS refused. 11 65. On or around April 9, 2021, via text, PLAINTIFF LUCIA texted DEFENDANT 12 LINARES on her ongoing request to fix the leak in the ceiling, cracked sheetrock and carpet stains. 13 66. To this, DEFENDANT LINARES said LUCIA was behind on rent and accused her of 14 not having reported the leak sooner. LUCIA denied this and pleading that the leak be fixed (“. . . 15 And no sir I believe what happened with the water was exactly what I told you happened and the 16 reason [it was] cracked and because there was a lot of water. And when water comes out it has to 17 come out of somewhere so it made a crack. But I called right away . . .” 18 67. Around the beginning of July 2021, there was a scheduled inspection to the PREMISES. 19 In addition to PLAINTIFF LUCIA, DEFENDANTS ZULETA, BOJORQUEZ and LINARES 20 were in attendance. 21 68. DEFENDANTS discovered the presence of three emotional support animals, for 22 SHAWN, including ORYAN the dog, DWIGHT the cat, and a second emotional support cat who 23 had been adopted to help SHAWN. 24 69. PLAINTIFF LUCIA made an oral request for reasonable accommodation, explaining 25 that the emotional support animals were for SHAWN, who needed them to cope with mental health 26 symptoms. DEFENDANT BOJORUQEZ told PLAINTIFF LUCIA that she was not permitted 27 to have pets and to get rid of the animals. 28 70. On or about July 9, 2021, PLAINTIFF LUCIA sent a written reasonable accommodation - 11 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 request (“July 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request”) to DEFENDANTS. LUCIA texted 2 BOJORQUEZ that the emotional support animals were necessary because her son, SHAWN, was 3 disabled and offered to provide a doctor’s letter in support. 4 71. In response, BOJORQUEZ texted: “I believe the lease agreement stipulates that no pets 5 are allowed… In my opinion you should have asked the landlord permission to have pets in the 6 property.” 7 72. Also in the same text exchange on or about July 9, 2021, LUCIA confirmed the ceiling 8 continued to leak and requested repairs. In response, BOJORQUEZ texted: “It has been a 9 challenge to get the right company to take a look at the ceiling damage”, but gave no date as when 10 someone would be sent out. 11 73. On or about July 25, 2021, DEFENDANTS served upon PLAINTIFFS a “NOTICE 12 OF CHANGE IN TERMS OF TENANCY” (“July 2021 Non-Renewal Notice”) stating therein 13 that PLAINTIFFS’ Lease would not be extended because of alleged breach of the pet policy 14 because: “TENANT HAS POSSESION [sic] OF TWO CATS AND A DOG IN THE 15 PROPERTY AND TRIED TO HIDE IT FROM LANDLORD.” The July 25, 2021 Non- 16 Renewal Notice stated the change would take effect “30 days of service or on 08/31/2021, . . . 17 whichever is later.” 18 74. In response to the July 25, 2021 Notice, PLAINTIFF LUCIA communicated with 19 DEFENDANTS reiterating that the animals were emotional support animals and that it would be 20 discriminatory for a landlord to evict a tenant for requesting a reasonable accommodation. 21 75. PLAINTIFF LUCIA offered to provide a doctor’s note in support. BOJORQUEZ 22 refused, pointing out that the LEASE does not allow for pets. 23 76. In or around August/September 2021, LINARES sent written notice to PLAINTIFF 24 LUCIA that she was to pay for the monthly trash bill and to put the account in her name. Prior to 25 this, LINARES had agreed to pay for the monthly trash. 26 77. Although this was a hardship, LUCIA put the trash bill in her name. PLAINTIFF 27 LUCIA became responsible for the monthly trash bill, retroactively, from at least April 1, 2021. 28 78. In or around August/September 2021, DEFENDANT LINARES via telephone and in - 12 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 person told PLAINTIFF LUCIA of intention to redo the LEASE and monthly rent would increase 2 from $3,200 to $3,450. 3 79. On or around August 27, 2021, DEFENDANTS served upon PLAINTIFFS a new 4 “NOTICE OF CHANGE IN TERMS OF TENANCY” (“August 2021 Non-Renewal Notice”), 5 nearly identical to the July 2021 Notice except that PLAINTIFFS’ Lease would be extended to 6 9/30/2021; that PLAINTIFFS were to vacate the PREMISES by 9/30/2021; and that “OWNER 7 WILL NOT EXTEND THE LEASE ANY MORE.” 8 80. In response to the August 2021 Non-Renewal Notice, PLAINTIFF LUCIA 9 communicated with DEFENDANTS renewing requests for reasonable accommodation and that it 10 was a violation of Fair Housing Law to refuse to renew her Lease because of the presence of their 11 emotional support animals. Nonetheless, fearing the loss of their housing, LUCIA re-homed all 12 three emotional support animals. 13 81. Shortly thereafter however, SHAWN began experiencing extreme stress and anxiety, 14 including severe panic attacks with prolonged screaming and crying. It was clear to LUCIA that the 15 loss of ORYAN was severely exacerbating the symptoms of his disabilities. SHAWN clamored for 16 the dog and believed that the dog had been stolen. Seeing her son in such distress, PLAINTIFF 17 LUCIA brought back the dog, hoping that DEFENDANTS would allow the dog to stay, as a 18 necessary and reasonable accommodation for SHAWN’s disabilities. 19 82. Sometime between issuance of the August 27 2021 Non-Renewal Notice and September 20 7, 2021, BOJORQUEZ went to the PREMISES and delivered to LUCIA all the water bills since 21 inception of the TENANCY, stating that now that was moving out she would need to pay for all of 22 her water usage, a sum in excess of $1,000.00. 23 83. To this, PLAINTIFF LUCIA called DEFENDANT ZULETA, asking for confirmation 24 that she was in fact responsible for all water bills, in light of the previous agreement that landlord 25 would be responsible for the same. 26 84. On September 7, 2021, ZULETA responded via voicemail stating: 27 “You don’t need to pay that water bill . . . so forget about Orlando [Bojorquez] said 28 because Oscar [LINARES] already said you don’t have to pay for those bills.” - 13 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 85. On or about September 9, 2021, PLAINTIFF LUCIA obtained a letter from SHAWN’s 2 doctor, Dr. Matthew Holve (“Dr. Holve’s 2021 Medical Verification”), therein confirming 3 SHAWN’s disabilities; his familiarity with SHAWN’s disabilities and long-term relationship, and 4 need for emotional support animal, stating therein: 5 “I am intimately familiar with the [SHAWN’s] history and with the functional limitations 6 imposed by his disability. He meets the definition of disability under the American[s] [sic] with Disabilities Act, The Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Per our 7 records he has had an emotional support animal since July of 2020. 8 Due to his illness, he has certain limitations regarding housing. In order to alleviate these difficulties, and to enhance his ability to live independently and to fully use and enjoy the 9 housing . . . , I am prescribing an emotional support animal that will assist hi[m] in coping with his disability.” 10 86. On or about September 10, 2021, PLAINTIFF LUCIA sent a follow-up written request 11 (“September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request”) for reasonable accommodation, 12 requesting rescission of the Notices of Non-Renewal, confirmed that the two emotional support 13 cats were rehomed, but requested accommodation to allow for dog ORYAN to remain at the 14 PREMISES. Therein, LUCIA further explained that while landlords may prohibit tenants from 15 having pets, such prohibitions may not be applied to emotional support animals because an 16 emotional support animal is not considered a pet; rather it is a tool used to assist a person with a 17 disability. 18 87. Furthermore, in the September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request, it stated : 19 20 Shawn’s disability is known to you because when we moved in one year ago, we discussed that he had a live-in aide who assisted with his daily functioning. Ultimately, the live-in aide 21 did not move in with us. Nevertheless, our discussions regarding the live-in aid alerted you to the severity of Shawn’s disability. . . 22 88. Therein, PLAINTIFF LUCIA referenced the prior July 2021 Reasonable 23 Accommodation Request; offered to provide further verification of SHAWNS’s disabilities upon 24 request by DEFENDANTS; and asked for DEFENDANTS’ response by September 17, 2021. 25 89. While PLAINTIFF LUCIA did not attach Dr. Holve’s 2021 Medical Verification to the 26 September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation Request, she stood ready to provide it if 27 DEFENDANTS asked. But they did not. 28 - 14 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 90. DEFENDANTS never responded to the September 2021 Reasonable Accommodation 2 Request. Thereafter, ORYAN remained at the PREMISES. 3 91. On or about September 21, 2021, the Department of Resource Management’s 4 Environmental Health Division of Solano County (hereinafter referred to as “Environmental 5 Health”) sent a letter to DEFENDANT LINARES entitled “Notice of Violation” (“First Notice 6 of Violation”)regarding the PREMISES. Therein, it confirmed receipt of a complaint on 7 September 16, 2021 regarding the “damaged ceiling” at the PREMISES. Pursuant to an inspection 8 conducted on September 21, 2021, the PREMISES were for violations of the California Health and 9 Safety Code Section 17920.3 as follows: 10 (B) (6) defective material/deterioration of ceiling: Portion of ceiling in the living room 11 adjacent to rear backyard exit observed peeling and with possible water leak damage. The current tenant provided a screen shot of a claimed text conversation with you, dated April 9th 12 [2021] regarding an alleged water leak damage from above affected ceiling area in living room (see photos) 13 92. The First Notice of Violation ordered abatement to be completed “no later than October 14 8, 2021”. This First Notice alleges a copy was sent to the Suisun City Building Department and 15 LUCIA GILLIS. 16 93. On or about September 21, 2021, the Department of Resource Management’s 17 Environmental Health Division of Solano County (hereinafter referred to as “Environmental 18 Health”) sent a letter to DEFENDANT LINARES entitled “Notice of Violation” (“First Notice 19 of Violation”) regarding the PREMISES . 20 94. DEFENDANTS failed to abate defects regarding the ceiling on or before October 8, 21 2021 as ordered by Environmental Health. 22 95. On or around October 28, 2021, DEFENDANT LINARES texted PLAINTIFF LUCIA 23 that she was to pay for the monthly water bill and to put the account in her name, even though 24 LINARES had previously agreed to be responsible for that. 25 96. To this on October 29, 2021 via text, LUCIA said it would be a hardship to be 26 responsible for water after making her responsible for the trash; and further objected to LINARES’ 27 prior statements that he would raise the rent. (“I feel like I am getting pushed out”; and asking “Do 28 - 15 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 you accept my reasonable accommodation for my animal?”). 2 97. On or about November 23, 2021, DEFENDANTS served upon PLAINTIFFS a 3 “NOTICE TO CURE OR QUIT” (“November 2021 Notice”), alleging breach of the rental 4 agreement and demanding therein: 5 “You and other occupants must cease with disturbing or annoying other tenants or 6 neighbors.” 7 98. The November 2021 Notice his Notice was signed by Thomas R. Healy, who identified 8 himself as attorney for the Landlord, OSCAR LINARES. 9 99. While the November 2021 Disturbing Notice did not state any facts in support on how 10 PLAINTIFFS were “disturbing or annoying other tenants or neighbors”, PLAINTIFF LUCIA 11 believed that this might be referring to noise caused by SHAWN, who has trouble controlling his 12 body volume due to his disabilities. 13 100. Shortly after receipt of the November 2021 Notice, LUCIA called LINARES asking for 14 explanation. LINARES said that BOJORQUEZ had received complaints from neighbors about 15 noise from PLAINTIFFS. Subsequently, LUCIA interviewed surrounding neighbors about this but 16 they were unaware of any noise complaints against PLAINTIFFS. LUCIA called LINARES back to 17 report this. To this, LINARES said to “forget about it” [the November 2021 Notice]. 18 101. On or around January 5, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA received a letter from the law 19 office of Thomas R. Healy (“Healy Letter”). Therein, it stated: 20 This office has been retained by Oscar Linares with regard to the [PREMISES]. Because your current lease has expired, Mr. Linares asked that I prepare a new lease. Note that the 21 rent will increase to $3,450/month and the security deposit will increase to $6,900 as of April 1, 2022. 22 102. The Healy Letter requested LUCIA’s signature and agreement to a new lease that would 23 include such terms. 24 103. On January 11, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA sent an e-mail to Mr. Healy, stating the 25 following: 26 Mr. Healy, 27 28 - 16 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Before signing the new lease would you be able to speak to the Landlord as you are the 1 go between about a pressing matter with a public Heath [sic] issue of a leaky roof that 2 has been going on for about 10 months? I have asked him to fix this with no response. The damage possibly could be getting worse with no action. Because of no response 3 after months (damage occurred March 2021) I called the health dept and they did an inspection and the determined it needed to be fix so they also sent Mr. Linares a letter 4 requesting for him to fix this by October 8th 2021 and he never answered them either. He never answered me or them as to when he would fix this problem. The only thing I 5 got was from one of his assistants that said he planned on fixing it when I moved out of the property. I thought maybe you could be able to help get some answers as when this 6 will be fixed as this is an important public health matter. 7 104. To this e-mail, PLAINTIFF LUCIA attached copy of the First Notice of Violation 8 from Environmental Health, dated September 21, 2021. 9 105. On January 20, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA and DEFENDANT LINARES exchanged 10 text communications involving repairs to be performed regarding “the upstairs bath tub leaking to 11 the downstair[s]. . .” and wherein LINARES stated he would send a contractor to the PREMISES 12 on January 22, 2022. 13 106. On or around January 22, 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA mailed a handwritten letter to 14 DEFENDANT LINARES stating therein: 15 I am requesting that you repair the ceiling leak that I notified you about on March 2021 that 16 still has not been addressed as to date. I am requesting for you to fix this problem back to its original working order prior to the leak from 30 day from this date. 17 18 107. On January 26 2022, PLAINTIFF LUCIA texted DEFENDANT LINARES multiple 19 times, confirming ongoing defects with the upstairs bathtub leak, LUCIA asking for help because 20 the plumber did not “have water” to address “overflow in the tub.” Texts confirm LINARES failed 21 to respond that day and through January 27, 2022. 22 108. On or about January 27, 2022, Solano County’s Environmental Health sent a follow 23 letter to DEFENDANT LINARES entitled “Notice of Violation” (“Second Notice of 24 Violation”)regarding the PREMISES . Therein, it reconfirmed receipt of a complaint on September 25 16, 2021 regarding the “damaged ceiling” at the PREMISES and the prior inspection of September 26 18, 2021 wherein defects were confirmed. Pursuant to a follow up inspection of January 18, 2022, 27 the Second Notice of Violation reconfirmed ongoing and unabated defects: 28 109. The following violations of the California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 were - 17 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 and shall be corrected: 2 1. (B) (6) defective material/deterioration of ceiling: Portion of ceiling in the living room 3 adjacent to rear backyard exit observed peeling and with possible water leak damage. The current tenant provided a screen shot of a claimed text conversation with you, dated April 9th 4 [2021] regarding an alleged water leak damage from above affected ceiling area in living room (see photos of ceiling-repeat complaint) 5 110. The Second Notice of Violation also confirmed that Environmental Health received no 6 response to the First Notice of Violation in September 2021, Environmental Health. 7 111. The Second Notice of Violation directed abatement of defects to be performed. This 8 Second Notice alleges a copy was sent to the Suisun City Building Department, LUCIA GILLIS, 9 and Thomas Healy, who was identified as “property manager”. 10 112. PLAINTIFFS wanted to continue living at the PREMISES. However, because of 11 increased rent, increased security deposit, failures to provide reasonable accommodation, and 12 repeated and ongoing failures and refusals to remedy defects, PLAINTIFF LUCIA gave 30 day 13 notice of intent to vacate on before 5 p.m. on March 9, 2022. This was sent via e-amil on 14 February 9, 2022 to Mr. Healy, LINARES’ counsel. 15 113. On March 9, 2022, PLAINTIFFS vacated the PREMISES as noticed. 16 114. To date, DEFENDANTS have failed and continue to fail to return or provide 17 accounting for PLAINTIFFS’ security deposit in compliance with California law. 18 D. DFEH COMPLAINT 19 115. ON or about May 5, 2022, through counsel from the Fair Housing Advocates of 20 Northern California (FHANC), LUCIA GILLIS filed an administrative complaint with the 21 Department of Fair Employment Housing (“DFEH”), Case No. 202112-15526001 (“Fair 22 Housing Complaint”), regarding the Tenancy. Named therein as Respondents OSCAR 23 LINARES, P & A REALTY, ORLANDO BOJORQUEZ and Juliz [sic] ZULETA (collectively 24 referenced therein as “Respondents” ) 25 116. In addition to LUCIA, the Fair Housing Complaint identified therein other aggrieved 26 parties as SHAWN and JASON. 27 117. In said Fair Housing Complaint, allegations included but were not limited to claims of 28 - 18 - Gillis, et al. v. Linares, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 retaliation and discrimination pursuant to Government Code § 12955 and Civil Code § 51, et seq. 2 118. On or about July 11, 2022, Respondents filed response denying allegations of the Fair 3 Housing Complaint. 4 119. On or about July 27, 2022, through counsel LUCIA filed rebuttal with supporting 5 documentation and evidence. 6 120. On or around February 22, 2023, as the parties were not able to reach settlement, 7 LUCIA submitted a request to withdraw the Fair Housing Complaint was withdrawn in order to file 8 a private lawsuit. 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 11 (TERMINATION OF LEASE IN CONNECTION WITH HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS) 12 FEHA, Govt. Code §§ 12955(a), (k), (m), and 12927(c)(1),(g) 13 (ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT ZULETA) 14 121. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference each paragraph previously alleged 15 as though fully set forth herein. 16 122. Pursuant to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California’s public 17 policy is to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to “seek, obtain, and hold 18 housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sexual orientation . . . physical disability, 19 mental disability, medical condition, . . . or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code” 20 [Govt. Code §§ 12920 – 12921, et. seq.]. 21 123. Furthermore, such opportunity to obtain and hold housing is “recognized as and declared 22 to be a civil right” [See Govt. Code § 12921(b)]. ((b) The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold 23 housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender 24 expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of 25 income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited 26 by Section 51 of th